Sentences with phrase «electors voting»

After the last day of advance polls, the equipment shall continue to be made available from the fifth day before polling day until the last day before polling day, for electors voting in person by special ballot at returning offices in their own electoral districts.

The electors voting on separate ballots for President and Vice President is actually what happens when the they meet in their state capitals on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December.

shall be submitted to and decided by the electors of the state; and in case a majority of the electors voting thereon shall decide in favor of a convention for such purpose, the electors of every senate district of the state, as then organized, shall elect three delegates at the next ensuing general election, and the electors of the state voting at the same election shall elect fifteen delegates - at - large.

After five years of economic crisis and mass unemployment, Greek electors voted 61.3 percent «No» to the bailout conditions already rejected by their radical leftist government, casting Greece into uncharted territory.

Direct election means that the electors vote directly for representatives of their constituency by giving their vote to an electoral list.

Of course 270 or more elector votes are needed to win the presidency but there are scenarios that exist where one candidate could win 269, another 268, and then a third candidate win one of the districts above and be awarded a single elector.

But some states require that their electors vote for the candidate on the ballot and won't certify other results.

In order to obtain this, I am thinking about a Greedy approach: order states by the «quickest win», i.e. most electors votes per votes and consider them one by one until reaching the required 270 votes.

At the time, each elector voted twice, the person with the most votes won, the person with the second most votes became VP, so long as the first had at least half of the EC votes.

It is just to give the electors a guide line in to in the elector vote, is it correct?

Well under one in five of all potential electors voted for the Conservative party.

If this is the case, it seems the only reason of the existence of elector vote is to give the electors a chance to be faithless, is it correct?

If this is the case, it looks like the only reason for the elector vote is to let some electors be faithless.

It's a tougher sell in Pennsylvania (32.00 % of third party voters) but still maybe possible, giving Clinton another 20 elector votes, bringing us to the exactly 36 scenario above.

The electors voted overwhelmingly to have it repealed.

(6) If the elector is unable to sign the declaration on the sealed outer envelope as mentioned in clause 45.8 (d), one of the special ballot officers shall make a note on the envelope indicating that the elector voted at a home visit.

50 (1) An elector voting under the authority of a certificate issued by the returning officer or revision assistant shall surrender it to the deputy returning officer at the polling place before receiving a ballot.

Not exact matches

Second, the electoral college got stuck in to provide a last line of defense against public stupidity — in case you didn't know it, the electors aren't legally bound to vote as their state's majority has.

It only affected the Electoral College because Florida's own method of determining Electors is tied to its own popular vote count.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

The cardinals voted Friday morning to accept the letters of explanation of two cardinal - electors who are eligible to vote for the next pope but will not attend the conclave: Keith O'Brien of Scotland and Julius Riyadi Darmaatmadja of Indonesia.

The Emperor was attempting to buy the votes of the Electors for the imperial election which must follow his death.

Read literally, the only time that's fixed is the day that the electors cast their votes.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing [sic] the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

«All of the affected electors will also be written to by their local Electoral Registration Officer with an explanation of what happened and will be told that they will not be able to vote at the referendum,» they said in a statement.

While the exact rules vary from state to state, essentially a voter is voting for a set of electors chosen by the party, and the most votes for a given party / candidate selects that set of electors, so where there is winner takes all, the set of electors is equal to the total number of electors for that state

I mean 51 % voters picked 20 electors who supports candidate A, and 49 % of them voted for 20 electors supporting candidate B. Which one electors will be chose to «final» voting (sorry for lack of specialist vocabulary)?

Define a coalition as winning if the total number of electoral votes of the state in that coalition is 270 or more (let's ignore at first that two small states make things more complicated by allowing a mixed elector group).

Almost all states follow a «winner - takes - all» policy: if a candidate gets a plurality of the vote in that state, then the group of electors chosen by that candidate's party are the ones who vote.

If a state has 30 electors and party A wins with 51 % of the popular vote, then 30 electors supporting the candidate for party A will be chosen.

Specifically, state level California Republicans had been pushing an effort in the legislature there to assign California's 55 electors by proportion of the popular vote to give them an opportunity to win some votes in a state with 12 % of the national population that they haven't had success winning in a generation.

Electors would have two votes: a constituency MP vote, and a party list vote, which might be different.

First, the only the thing that the Constitution actually says about the selection and voting of the state's electors is the following in Article II, Section 1, Clause 2:

This is from the Constitution's viewpoint that assumes electors make their own decisions on whom to vote for.

If you can tell them who they must vote for (which we'd agree most likely would be ruled out for direct elections) are they really electors?

Under the Proportional Electoral College system I am proposing, an automated computer system would replace individual electors in reporting and casting votes on behalf of the electorate.

Several states have laws that purport to restrict or punish faithless electors for their electoral votes.

Second, the electoral college was set up to weed out «unacceptable» candidates not by dividing fringe voters in different states per se but by giving the electors the power to elect the candidate who lost the popular vote in the event that the more popular candidate turned out to be unacceptable for whatever reason.

What they'd probably do is to vote for their party's presidential candidate, and become «faithless electors» when it came to the VP, either abstaining from that vote, or voting for a non-Texan (presumably, a different member of their own party) for that office.

The issue was that the electors from Texas would not have been able to vote for both Bush and Cheney, not that Cheney would have been disqualified altogether.

Each state's law determines how those electors are selected, and which candidate they vote for.

Just not both from State X. On the other hand, electors from State Y and State Z are perfectly free to vote for two State X candidates.

Since the Supreme Court has now prevented itself from acknowledging the question of whether Barack H. Obama is or is not an Article II «natural born citizen» based on the Kenyan / British citizenship of Barack Obama's father at the time of his birth (irrespective of whether Barack Obama is deemed a «citizen» born in Hawaii or otherwise) as a prerequisite to qualifying to serve as President of the United States under the Constitution — the Court having done so at least three times and counting, first before the Nov 4 general election and twice before the Dec 15 vote of the College of Electors — it would seem appropriate, if not necessary, for all Executive Branch departments and agencies to secure advance formal advice from the United States Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel as to how to respond to expected inquiries from federal employees who are pledged to «support and defend the Constitution of the United States» as to whether they are governed by laws, regulations, orders and directives issued under Mr. Obama during such periods that said employees, by the weight of existing legal authority and prior to a decision by the Supreme Court, believe in good faith that Mr. Obama is not an Article II «natural born citizen».

The Founding Fathers thought that if electors only had one vote, they'd each vote for a «favorite son» from their own state.

What the Constitution says is that an elector of State X is not allowed to vote for both a presidential candidate who resides in State X and a VP candidate from State X.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not lie an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves.

The US Presidential election uses an «electoral college» system, where each state gets a certain number of «electors» (votes), and those electors cast the official votes for President.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves

(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner, unless -

EQUAL CONSTITUENCIES, securing the same amount of representation for the same number of electors, instead of allowing small constituencies to swamp the votes of larger ones.